Letters
 

Newsday, August 6, 1987
 

David N. Dinkins-Manhattan. Editor's Note: The writer is ManhattanBoroughPresident.

In your editorial "Bike Ban" [July 24], you correctly point out thatalthough the city has announced a program to protect pedestrians from bicycles,motor vehicles actually pose a much greater threat.  While 640 citypedestrians were injured by bicycles last year, nearly 15,000 were injuredby motor vehicles, according to the New York City Police Department.

My concern for the safety of pedestrians in Manhattan prompted me toform a Planning for Pedestrians Council, which would make recommendationsfor improving the safety and quality of pedestrian life.

The council, which comprises  architects, planners and other experts,is headed by Bill Simmer, a vice president of the Regional Planning Association.One of the issues I have asked the council to consider are cyclists andtheir riding patterns. I am particularly concerned about bicycle messengersand the threat that many of them pose to pedestrian safety.

I therefore agree with your editorial that the proposed experimentalbicycle ban is worth a try. It is our hope, however, that the city willdevelop clear criteria to evaluate the success of the ban. What will bethe impact of the ban on pedestrian safety throughout the borough? Will accidents increase outside the area of the ban?  What will bethe impact of the ban on the livelihood of bicycle messengers, many ofwhom have families to support?  Perhaps a reform of the pieceworksystem, whereby messengers are paid according to how many items they deliver,is worth considering.

Your editorial did not mention one significant component of the city'sbicycle program: proposed legislation to regulate messenger bicyclists.Requiring all messengers to be licensed would be more effective than banningall cyclists from selected avenues. It would also be fairer in that itwould not affect bicycle commuters or recreational cyclists, or penalizemessengers who obey traffic regulations.